An advertisement was placed in the press offering a farm house to let when the advertiser had no authority to let it.
Held: The action gave rise to an action in deceit founded on the implied representation that he did have authority.
Blackburn J: ‘I think, in the present case, on the face of the particulars, especially when amended as proposed, a cause of action was disclosed. It must be taken upon the statement of the plaintiff that the advertisement was issued some indirect motive, and that the farm was not to be let. This amounts to a false representation. It was a false statement knowingly made and published in order to be read by persons who would be likely to be tenants of farms, and the natural consequence would be that the person who was desirous of becoming a tenant would, upon reading the advertisement, incur expense in looking at the farm. This, it is alleged, is what the plaintiff did. It must also be taken that this was a representation made to the plaintiff.’
Quain J: ‘I think the particulars disclose a cause of action, which ought to have been heard on the merits. They in effect allege the plaintiff falsely, and well knowing he had no authority to sell the farm, represented that he had, and published an advertisement to that effect. It is quite clear that all persons who were likely to take a farm, or might be reasonably contemplating taking a farm, acting upon that advertisement, and incurring expense in consequence of that false representation, have a remedy by action for deceit. It appears to me that the particulars and the amendment do disclose a cause of action for deceit; and under such circumstances I think the judge ought to have heard the case, and the case should be sent back to him to be further heard.’
Judges:
Blackburn J, Quain J, Archibald J
Citations:
(1873) LR IX QB 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd v Bond Street Jewellers Ltd CA 4-Jul-2006
The claimant left a valuable necklace with the defendant jewellers for sale. The jewellers fell into financial difficulties, and the director gave the necklace as security for a loan to the company. The jeweller failed to maintain payments on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242991
